Fracture pattern analysis of fractures to the diaphysis of the fifth metatarsal.

BACKGROUND: Fractures to the fifth's metatarsal (MT-V) diaphysis are common. These are inconsistently referred to as diaphyseal-, shaft-, or Dancer's fractures. A comprehensive analysis of the MT-V fracture morphology is missing. The aim was to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze fracture patterns of MT-V diaphyseal fractures. HYPOTHESIS: Fractures to the shaft of the fifth metatarsal feature specific fracture morphologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, radiologic database study. Included were all acute, isolated MT-V shaft fractures (including the proximal [Lawrence and Botte (L&B) III] and distal meta-diaphysis). Demographics and fracture characteristics were assessed. Each proximal fracture line was drawn, scaled, and a qualitative and quantitative fracture line analysis was conducted. The quantitative fracture line analysis aimed at identifying dens clusters with arbitrary shape using the DBSCAN algorithm. Data are presented as mean±standard deviation. RESULTS: Out of 704 eligible MT-V fractures, 156 met the inclusion criteria. Patient's mean age was 46±19 years and 94% suffered a low energy trauma. Qualitative and quantitative fracture line analysis revealed three distinct fracture patterns. The proximal (30%) and distal (5%) meta-diaphyseal clusters showed a predominant transverse fracture pattern. The vast majority of diaphyseal fractures (56%) were spiral/oblique fractures, progressing from the proximal lateral meta-diaphyseal region in an oblique course at 61±9° to the medial distal diaphyseal cortex. Seven percent of diaphyseal fractures showed a transverse fracture pattern. DISCUSSION: Based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of all MT-V shaft fractures, three distinct fracture clusters were identified with homogeneous fracture patterns. MT-V shaft fractures should therefore be classified as proximal meta-diaphyseal (L&B Type III), diaphyseal (oblique or transverse) and distal meta-diaphyseal. LEVEL OF PROOF: IV; retrospective database study.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of the Posterior Malleolus Fragment in Ankle Fractures Improves the Patient-Rated Outcome: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus (PM) is still intensively debated. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the patient-rated outcome following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for fractures of the PM to either closed reduction using AP screws (CRIF) or no treatment in bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures. METHODS: Systematic literature research (MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Scopus, Central and EMBASE) according to the PICOS and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible were studies comparing the outcome following ORIF to any other treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus in isolated bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures. RESULTS: Twelve studies were eligible for a qualitative analysis and 6 for a quantitative analysis. Overall, a considerable heterogeneity among the studies was observed. The most commonly used outcome score was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (AOFAS). The final follow-up ranged from 12 to 160 months. Four studies compared ORIF to CRIF of the PM. The quantitative analysis revealed significantly better AOFAS scores for ORIF (90.9 vs 83.4 points; P < .001; I2 = 0%). Three studies compared ORIF to untreated PM fragment. The quantitative analysis again revealed superior AOFAS scores for ORIF (92.0 vs 82.5 points; P < .001; I2 = 99%). A similar trend was observed for the Ankle Fracture Scoring System and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Questionnaire scores as well as the quality of reduction. CONCLUSION: Despite a considerable heterogeneity, the data available point to a superior outcome following ORIF for fractures to the PM when compared to CRIF or no treatment.

Acute, isolated fractures of the metatarsal bones: an epidemiologic study.

INTRODUCTION: Although metatarsal fractures are common, the significance of previous epidemiologic studies is limited to specific fracture entities, subpopulations, or heterogeneous fracture aetiologies. The aim of the study was to assess the epidemiology of isolated metatarsal fractures in an adult population at a level-1 trauma centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiological and clinical databases were searched for a five-year period. Eligible were all patients with acute isolated metatarsal fractures over the age of 18 years with radiographs in two planes available. Stress fractures, injuries affecting Lisfranc joint stability, and concomitant injuries to other regions than the metatarsals were excluded. Data collection included general demographics, mechanism of injury, season of the trauma and fracture details. RESULTS: Out of 3259 patients, 642 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included for the analysis. The patients' mean age was 44.5 ± 18.9 years, 50.6% were female. 83.3% suffered an isolated, 16.7% multiple metatarsal fractures. Single metatarsal fractures occurred predominantly at the fifth metatarsal bone (81.3%), their frequency decreased with increasing age, with a seasonal peak during the summer. Patients suffering multiple metatarsal fractures were significantly older (51.6 ± 21.2 vs. 43.0 ± 18.1 years; p < 0.001) and the injury resulted significantly more often from a high-energy trauma (6.7% vs. 23.4%; p < 0.001). Multiple metatarsal fractures occurred evenly throughout all metatarsals but revealed a focus on female population with no seasonal differences. CONCLUSION: Single metatarsal fractures predominantly occurred at the fifth metatarsal bone and showed a seasonal, gender and age dependency. Multiple metatarsal fractures were homogeneously distributed between the different metatarsals with distinct age-dependent gender differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Fifth Metatarsal Fracture­A Systematic Review of the Treatment of Fractures of the Base of the Fifth Metatarsal Bone.

BACKGROUND: Metatarsal fractures are among the most common foot and ankle injuries, with an annual incidence of 6.7 per 100 000 persons. Approximately 30% of metatarsal fractures affect the base of the fifth metatarsal bone. Nevertheless, no evidence-based treatment recommendations are available to date. METHODS: The three fracture localizations according to Lawrence and Botte (zone I, proximal to the intermetatarsal joint between the fourth and fifth metatarsal bones; zone II, in the area of the joint; zone III, at the distal end of the joint) are analyzed on the basis of a systematic literature search. Studies were included that compared the treatment of two types of fracture in the same manner, or that compared two different treatments for a single type of fracture. RESULTS: Nine studies compared different treatments of zone I fractures. Two of these were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); in one RCT, patients given functional therapy returned to work much sooner than those treated with immobilization (11 vs. 28 days; p = 0.001), with otherwise similar outcomes. The non-randomized studies revealed a faster return to full function (33 vs. 46 days; p<0.05) with early functional therapy, and similar outcomes for immobilization and surgery. One RCT that compared functional therapy with immobilization for zone II fractures revealed no statistically significant difference. Five studies compared fractures in zones I and II that were treated in the same manner, revealing similar outcomes. One RCT compared surgery and immobilization for zone III fractures: surgery led to statistically significant improvement of the outcome in all of the measured parameters. CONCLUSION: Fractures in zones I and II should be treated with early functional therapy. There seems to be no reason to consider zone I and II fractures as two separate entities, as the outcomes in the two groups are similar. In contrast, fractures in zone III should primarily be treated surgically.

How Does Wearing a Facecover Influence the Eye Movement Pattern in Times of COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic facecovers have become a common sight. The effect of facecovers on the gaze when looking at faces has not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate any potential differences in eye movement pattern in observers exposed to images showing a face without and with a facecover to identify if there is truly a change of gaze when identifying (masked) facial features. METHODS: The eye movement of 64 study participants (28 males and 36 females) with a mean [standard deviation] age of 31.84 [9.0] years was analyzed in this cross-sectional observational study. Eye movement analysis was conducted based on positional changes of eye features within an x- and y-coordinate system while two images (face without/with facecover) were displayed for 8 seconds. RESULTS: The results of this study revealed that the sequence of focusing on facial regions was not altered when wearing a facecover and followed the sequence: perioral, nose, periorbital. Wearing a facecover significantly increased the time spent focusing on the periorbital region and also increased the number of repeated eye fixations during the 8-second visual stimulus presentation. No statistically significant differences were observed between male and female participants in their eye movement pattern across all investigated variables (P > 0.433). CONCLUSIONS: The altered eye movement pattern caused by wearing facecoverings that this study has revealed suggests that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, aesthetic practitioners might consider developing marketing and treatment strategies that principally target the periorbital area.